D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Alok Ranjan, has preferred this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2003 (T.R. No. 212 of 2005) filed by the Officer -Incharge of Simaria police station pending in the court of C.J.M. Chatra.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner, Alok Ranjan narrated his statement before the police at Referral Hospital, Simaria on 18.5.2000 that in the morning on the same day at about 5 a.m. he along with his cousin came to the bus stand Simaria, for boarding a bus but since no Ranchi bound bus was available immediately, they visited the tea shop of one Amarjeet Halwai (Gupta) to have tea. On demand, a cup of tea was served on him while sipping tea he felt some bitterness in test, but inspite of, he consumed it and after sometime he felt uncomfortable. He immediately rushed to his home where his father administered water mixed with salt, as a result of which he started vomiting at once. He was taken to Referral Hospital, Simaria thereafter for his treatment of suspected poisoning. A case was registered under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code against accused, Amarjeet Halwai (Gupta). After investigation of the case the police submitted Final Form on 27.12.2002 exonerating the criminal liability of Amarjeet Halwai (Gupta) but at the same time the Investigating Officer. ASI, Simaria presented a written complaint in the court of C.J.M. Chatra for initiation of the criminal proceeding against the informant/petitioner herein for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the Informant/Petitioner had lodged a false case against Amarjeet Halwai and upon such presentation, the C.J.M Chatra by the order impugned dated 8.8.2003 took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without issuing any notice or an opportunity of being heard. Mr. Deepak Kumar learned counsel submitted that it is ridiculous to mention that though the C.J.M. Chatra, accepted the Final Form on 25.11.2005 in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No. 15 of 2000 but much prior to that, on the presentation of a written report of the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, the C.J.M took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner/informant much prior to that on 8.8.2003 in contravention of the provisions of procedural law causing misuse of process of the court. Mr. Deepak Kumar pointed out that it would be evident that the Investigating Officer submitted his Final Form in Simaria P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 on 27.12.2002 and it was received in the court of C.J.M. on 17.12.2003 without any explanation by the Investigating Officer about such inordinate delay in submission. The petitioner filed a protest petition in Simaria P.S. Case No. 15 of 2000 supporting his earlier statements made in his fardbeyan in which it was stated that accused Amarjeet Halwai in collusion with Simaria police had been pressurizing him to withdraw this case and the petitioner submitted to the C.J.M, to take cognizance against accused Amarjeet Halwai (Annexure -4). It would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner/informant, after his first hand treatment at Referral Hospital Simaria in a suspected case of poisoning, was referred to RMCH, Ranchi where he was admitted on 19.5.2000 and was discharged on 20.5.2000 (Annexure 5 and 5/1). But due to undue pressure on him made by the police as well as the accused Amarjeet Halwai, the petitioner had to file a compromise petition on 10.11.2000 in the court of C.J.M. Chatra. The learned counsel highlighted that pending disposal of the protest petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/informant a proceeding initiated against him for the offence under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code by instituting Misc. Case is bad in law, without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument Mr. Deepak Kumar submitted that the C.J.M. Chatra failed to take into consideration that the provisions as laid down in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars taking of cognizance for the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code on official complaint or on the complaint of the police and therefore, the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence is not sustainable.;